Standing Committee A

[Mr. Kevin Hughes in the Chair]

Road Safety Bill

Kevin Hughes: The programme motion agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday appears on the amendment paper. I remind hon. Members that the debate on the programme motion may continue for up to half an hour. I call the Minister to move the motion.

David Jamieson: I beg to move, That
 (1) during proceedings on the Road Safety Bill the Standing Committee (in addition to its first meeting on Thursday 20th January at 9.25 a.m.) shall meet— 
(a) at 2.30 p.m. on Thursday 20th January, 
(b) at 9.25 a.m. and 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday 25th January, 
(c) at 9.25 a.m. on Thursday 27th January, 
(d) at 9.25 a.m. and 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday 1st February and Thursday 3rd February; 
 (2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely, Clauses 1 to 4; Schedule 1; Clauses 5 to 8; Schedule 2; Clause 9; Schedule 3; Clauses 10 to 32; Schedule 4; Clauses 33 to 41; Schedule 5; Clauses 42 to 46; Schedule 6; Clauses 47 to 51; new Clauses; new Schedules; any other proceedings relating to the Bill; 
 (3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.30 p.m. on Thursday 3rd February. 
This is a special occasion, Mr. Hughes, because it is the first time that I have been in a Committee under your chairmanship. That is not bad fortune on my part, as I believe that it is the first time that you have chaired a Standing Committee. We wish you well in this venture over the next couple of weeks. I am sure that, with Mr. Pike, you will keep us very much in order. 
May I also say what a pleasure it is to be sitting here with hon. Gentlemen who are almost friends nowadays, the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), as well as their colleagues on the Opposition Benches, and of course my colleagues on the Government Benches? I hope that we will have a productive time scrutinising the Bill. 
The Bill contains many good measures and I think that it will have widespread support inside and outside the House; indeed, I know that it does. There are issues relating to how far we go in certain areas and whether we should put more into the Bill, but I am sure that we will cover those matters adequately in the time available. 
We had a good and full debate on Second Reading, and I am pleased to see in the Committee so many hon. Members who contributed so well to it. The tone of the debate was very constructive and largely consensual, and I hope that that will continue into our debates in the Committee.

Christopher Chope: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Hughes. I know that you come here with massive experience. Although you are only newly qualified, you have got rid of your L-plates and do not need any P-plates. I am sure that we will all benefit from your adjudications during the proceedings.
I also thank the Minister for his kind remarks. There is indeed now a bit of a team on the Government, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches. What the Committee shares with other recent Committees dealing with transport issues is a lack of interest in what is going from among the other parties, particularly the nationalist parties. However, we probably do not need to come back to that, as none of them is represented on this Committee, apparently at their own request. 
The Minister did not make it clear that the programme motion was not approved unanimously. We voted against it because we do not see the need for such prescription as it sets out. We welcome the Minister's assurance that, if we need more time, the Government will be flexible about that. If the Minister were not under pressure from others in his party, he would probably have agreed that the Committee could sit without the benefit of timetabling. However, we take at face value his commitment to ensure that the Bill is properly scrutinised. 
Conservative Members have tabled a number of amendments, as well as some new clauses. I hope that, because this is a miscellaneous Bill, there will be enough time to discuss the new clauses. I know that the Bill has been criticised by some road safety interests as a bit of a hotch-potch, but, because it is so wide-ranging, it gives people an opportunity to put forward their own ideas for changing and improving our road traffic law. I hope that we will have a chance to discuss some of those ideas in the debates on new clauses.

John Thurso: May I, too, welcome you to the chair, Mr. Hughes, and say that we look forward to deliberating on this Bill under your benign tutelage? I thank the Minister for his kind words. As the hon. Member for Christchurch said, we have become something of a team in transport matters, and our deliberations have been characterised by some sensible debates, which have enabled us, on occasion, to improve the Bill under consideration, and certainly to find out what the Government are proposing. I thank the Minister also for the briefing that he arranged with his officials, which I and other Opposition colleagues found useful.
As the Minister said, this is a Bill that all sides of the House generally support. It has some good measures. However, there are areas where it can usefully be strengthened, and we will see whether the Government look favourably on some of our suggestions. Some clauses may have consequences that need to be teased out, and we hope that the Minister will put on record exactly what the Government's intentions are. 
We are content with the programme motion. We believe that there is sufficient time, and we hope that we will be able to get through the business and thoroughly consider the Bill in the time available.

Greg Knight: I join the welcome given to your chairmanship, Mr. Hughes. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch referred to the absence of the nationalist parties from this Committee, but I did not understand his point, because he and I were recently members of the Committee on the Railways Bill to which a nationalist Member had been appointed, and apart from one brief appearance he did not bother to turn up. It does not make much difference whether nationalist Members are nominated to serve in Committee.
The programme motion is not needed, and I rise to register my objection to it. We have on this Committee two experienced Whips, and having had experience of the Government Whip and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on other Committees, I have found that they are fair, professional and experienced, and can well deal with business matters through the usual channels without the necessity of this motion. 
I know that Government Members sometimes get bored and irritated by the Opposition regularly opposing programme motions on the Floor of the House. Perhaps it is appropriate that I explain why I join my colleagues in voting against such motions and why I am not happy to see this programme motion today. As you will know, Mr. Hughes, during the term of the previous Conservative Government I was the Government deputy Chief Whip, and the time came when we decided that some changes were necessary to our procedures. We asked a team of people to examine them, and the Jopling report was produced. I was asked to see the then Prime Minister, John Major, who made it quite clear that he wanted to implement the report, but gave me clear instructions that no part of the report was to be implemented unless it had the consent of the then Labour Opposition. I then embarked on discussions with Don Dixon, now Lord Dixon, who was at that time Labour's deputy Chief Whip, and over a period of months we agreed what parts of the Jopling reforms would be acceptable to the Opposition. Only the acceptable parts were implemented. 
The problem with programme motions, and the reason that Government Members must go through the Lobbies week after week to support them while we oppose them, is that the current regime has been imposed without consent. I think it was the now Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who introduced those provisions, and they did not have the consent of the Opposition. It is right and proper that we continue to register our objection to a system on which we have not been consulted and that we do not agree with.

David Wilshire: I, too, welcome you to the Chair of the Committee, Mr. Hughes. It will be a pleasure, and I hope that it will be fun for you too. I will save time by not making a point of order, as I usually do because I got my knuckles severely rapped by the Chair a long time ago for taking my jacket off without asking for permission. So, when you call a vote, if you say whether you are prepared to tolerate the sight of Wilshire in his shirt sleeves, I will  be eternally grateful. [Interruption.] My ties crop up regularly in debate. The reason for this tie is that yesterday certain members of the Labour party told me that they did not believe that I had such an awful tie as the one that I was wearing, so I found this one, which is, I think, even worse.
At the outset, Mr. Hughes, I also ask whether you will accept a general apology from me. There is a sense of deja vu about our proceedings. On Tuesday, we were talking about railways, and on Thursday we are talking about road safety. So, if I start talking about the railways, point out that I am out of order, but forgive me, because I have not got my mind round this job yet. I hope that there will not be a third subject. 
Some people have heard me say that the Opposition are opposed to the motion in principle. The unfortunate thing for those who have heard me talk about the subject before is that some members of the Committee have not done so. It is therefore necessary to put on the record why the Government are being undemocratic—wearing their jackboots and stamping all over the democracy of the United Kingdom. I believe that the matter is serious. Every time that they ask us to approve a programme motion, the Government are saying that they could not care less about the quality of legislation or about providing a reasonable voice for those who disagree, but want their legislation by a set date come hell or high water. We can say or do what we like, but they will have their legislation even if it has not been discussed properly. In my book, that is not democracy. That is why we will always oppose such motions in principle. 
In the time that I have been a Whip on Bills, many have run into the sand. It is possible that we will. Although there were 39 sittings of one Committee, we considered less than half the clauses. Some people say, ''Well, if there is no timetable, the Opposition will take advantage of the situation.'' It takes one to know one; I remember sitting in this very Room as a member of the Standing Committee considering the community charge legislation. We were here for about four months, not because of anything that I and Government Back Benchers said but because of the endless ramblings of the then Opposition, which, as they were not ruled out of order, were just about in order. I assume that the great worry that the Government have when introducing programme motions is that we might behave as they used to. Perhaps they are criticising themselves rather than us. 
It seems to me that the important thing to consider about the programme motion, which was the argument that the Government used when suggesting to me the number of sittings that we ought to have for the Bill, is whether the time will be sufficient. I will return to the point that the Minister made in a minute. If one adds up the number of hours made available, then, working on the assumption that we finish at about 5 o'clock—that may not be the case, I know—we are likely to sit for about 25 hours. When I first came to the House, there was a convention that a guillotine could not be asked for in Standing  Committee until the Committee had been sitting for about 100 hours. That gives an indication of the truncation of debate that is taking place. 
I will turn to the specifics of what is being suggested. Although I object in principle, I intend no criticism of the usual channels. We have a good working relationship and, despite the constraint that the Government cannot agree to what I want and I will never agree to a programme motion in principle, we talk to each other. I cannot speak for Government Members, but I assure you, Mr. Hughes, that although I object to what they are doing, I will try to make the process as pain-free as I can. I do not want anybody to think that there has been a breakdown in the usual channels of communication before we start. 
When the Minister introduced the motion and told us that it was okay, he said that we will cover all the Bill in the time available. If he is that good at predicting the future, could he please tell me the winner of the 2.30 this afternoon, at whatever race course they are racing at? I would make a fortune. It appears that he knows before we start how we are going to get on. I dispute that. Issues could arise that will take longer than we think, or we could finish earlier. There are those who think that my business is to ensure that we take as long as possible, and I am afraid that I upset those people. The Minister nods. He takes the view that, just because I stand up and speak, I am determined to see that the Committee runs its time. If only he had bothered to read the Hansard report of Tuesday's sitting of the Standing Committee on the Railways Bill; he would have discovered that although I was the Whip on that Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) were there as well—we finished with a sitting in hand. As it turned out, it was not necessary to continue, but we did not know that when we started. 
It is possible that, in this case, we may finish before 3 February, but it is equally possible that we may finish on 3 February only because of a guillotine that insists that we do and that there will be unconsidered business. It ought to be possible in grown-up politics for the Government to be prepared to be reasonable about democracy and reasonable with the Opposition. On 6 May, they will be in opposition and they will discover that some of the rules that they have made to try to silence us will cause them great difficulty. If I were them I would, if nothing else, learn from other people. They should have some idea of what is in this for them in the future. 
There is one other thing. In the Programming Sub-Committee last night, the Minister, to whom I am grateful because I know that he was genuinely and sincerely trying to help us, said that we could overcome the difficulties of lack of time by sitting late—that from the party that wanted to modernise this place so that we did not sit late. The best that he can do is to say that we will keep on sitting. I will be interested to see how he votes next Wednesday in the debate on the sitting hours. 
On principle, the motion is wrong because it tramples on democracy, and in practice, it means that, in certain circumstances, if we were to do justice to the issues raised, the Minister would want us to sit into the evening or all night. That cannot be sensible and it certainly cannot be democratic. I hope that you will allow a Division, Mr. Hughes.

Kevin Hughes: May I respond to the question about gentlemen Members and jackets first? When I am in the Chair, gentlemen Members can assume that they may remove their jackets—but I am not agreeing to anything else after that.

David Wilshire: Not even my tie?

Kevin Hughes: Not even that.
Question put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Kevin Hughes: I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution and a ways and means resolution in connection with the Bill. Copies of the resolutions are available in the Room. I also remind Members that adequate notice should be given of any amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments. I ask Members to switch off mobile phones and pagers, or at least to put them on silent mode, please.

Clause 1 - Road safety grants

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (3)'.

Kevin Hughes: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end add—
 '(3) No road safety grant shall be paid to any organisation which comprises or is part of a safety camera partnership.'.

Christopher Chope: The amendment tries to probe the Government a bit further on road safety grants. I do not believe that anyone is opposed to expenditure on road safety. Indeed, many people would criticise the Government for not having invested enough in it. Nor are we against giving grants. However, we would like the Minister to explain why the safety camera partnerships that have been set up in almost every area of the country, and which comprise local authorities, police authorities and others, are not able to spend their resources on road safety in the way in which this clause says that money can be spent. If the partnerships were able to spend money on road safety without constraint, there would be no need for the clause.
My second question, of which I gave notice, is about how clause 1 interacts with clause 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. It is becoming increasingly difficult to follow road traffic law, as the Government are introducing so many different pieces of legislation that affect road safety. Indeed, many are being debated in this House at the same time. Clauses in this Bill and in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill deal with insurance. This clause authorises road safety grants, and clause 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill makes provision for payments by the Secretary of State to police authorities for the prevention, detection and enforcement of traffic offences in respect of seat belts, lighting, insurance, licences, test certificates, inadequate registration marks and so on. If such payments can be made under clause 132 of that Bill for the prevention of traffic offences, why is clause 1 necessary in this Bill? 
Perhaps the Minister could discuss clause 132, which is, in essence, a Department of Transport clause in a Home Office Bill, and also the problem that I have identified. The notes on clauses for the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill contained absolutely nothing about why clause 132 is necessary, what it hoped to achieve and what sums of money might be at stake. 
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to some of those questions and explain in some detail why he feels that safety camera partnerships should not be able to re-invest their proceeds. They are awash with money as a result of the Government's policy of increasing the number of penalties through the establishment of fixed cameras.

David Wilshire: I can understand my hon. Friend's argument, but will he reassure me that any provision that the Bill makes for safety partnerships will run only for 108 days, because when Labour lose the next election, we intend to abolish the wretched things?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We intend to get away from unnecessary bureaucracy, and we regard the safety camera partnerships as  unnecessarily bureaucratic. There is nothing that they do that cannot be done by the police authorities on their own. Indeed, there is a system of divide and rule that is causing a lot of confusion for the public. I have passed on correspondence from constituents to the police authority, which has replied, ''That has nothing to do with us. It is the responsibility of the safety camera partnership.'' Similarly, the local authority said, ''It has nothing to do with us. It's the responsibility of the safety camera partnerships.''
The partnerships have a lot of money. I estimate the yield from fines to be between £60 million and £100 million per annum because the number of speeding offences has increased under the Government from about 600,000 in 1996 to the best part of 4 million, based on the figures available. 
The partnerships have an enormous amount of income and many people might ask why some of that money cannot be reinvested on speed indicator signs, so that people are warned that they are exceeding the speed limit. Those signs do not incur any penalty if one does not comply with them, but they have a good impact in improving road safety and ensuring that people reduce their speed. The trouble is that it costs money to put those signs up, and many local authorities say that they have not got the resources to do that. Why have they not got those resources? Because the Government will not allow them to reinvest the money that is coming into safety camera partnerships from fines because the money is being sent to the Home Office. 
The only money that can be reinvested from safety camera partnerships is in propaganda, which has always been the top priority of the Government, and in putting up more cameras. We believe that prevention is better than cure, and we would like to see some of the money being invested in road safety measures, through engineering and education. We shall come on later to discuss driver-improvement courses. 
Even the administration of those courses can require funds. The courses run under the auspices of many police authorities, such as the BikeSafe courses, require money. We believe that it would be much simpler if those road safety measures could be funded out of fine and penalty income, rather than have that income going to the Government to be recycled and churned, creating a lot more bureaucracy and work for officialdom and reducing the amount of money available for front-line road safety improvements. I hope that the Minister will answer some of our concerns.

Greg Knight: I suppose that one could argue narrowly that speed camera partnerships do not directly promote road safety. They promote, or rather prosecute and pursue, the detection of offences. It would help the Committee if the Minister explained the scope of the definition of road safety in the clause. The sort of things we all initially think of are education—educating drivers to drive better and more safely—sensible traffic signing, and traffic-calming  measures, including the increasing use of electronic flashing signs, which I welcome because that they are effective.
Those are the sort of measures that most of us associate with ''promoting road safety'' and it would certainly help me to decide where I stand on this group of amendments if the Minister gave the Committee some examples of measures that might be promoted under the clause.

David Wilshire: I rise to speak specifically to the amendments. The generality of speed cameras may be better and more fully debated later in the Bill, so I shall not test your patience, Mr. Hughes, by drifting out of order into a general discussion of road safety.
I feel constrained and those who have the same sense of deja vu as I do will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire occasionally but cruelly disagreeing with what I thought at the time were sensible amendments to the Railways Bill. Perhaps they will forgive me if I say that I am slightly worried about their otherwise marvellous amendment. The wretched safety camera partnerships are bureaucracies that too often persecute motorists; I shall talk about that under a later clause. 
The principle of giving them the power to spend the money they raise is fine, but why not make the money do something good, such as improving road safety? I can buy into that principle, but what worries me is that the amendment would provide yet another reason for the cameras to be used for general money raising, which is what some of them are used for at the moment. Knowing how some of them operate, if they could spend the money that they raised on road safety—we all agree that road safety is a good idea—many would succumb to the temptation to fleece motorists even more for a good cause. If my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will forgive me, I think that the amendment contains a slight technical snag. 
However, I warm to amendment No. 2, which states: 
 ''No road safety grant shall be paid to any organisation which comprises or is part of a safety camera partnership''. 
My hon. Friend will tell me if I misunderstand his intention, but I take that to mean that no grant of any sort could be paid to any council or police force that supports those wretched bureaucracies. That would certainly focus their minds on getting rid of them and we might not then need to legislate to do so. I commend amendment No. 2 to the Committee wholeheartedly for the purpose of destroying the bureaucracies rather than anything else. 
If my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch wants to pursue the matter, I hope that he shares my enthusiasm for amendment No. 2 and will reflect on my minor reservation about amendment No. 1.

Andrew Rosindell: I speak as a London Member of Parliament. I represent an outer London constituency and, unfortunately, we suffer  greatly from being lumped into partnerships and bodies stretching all the way across London. The safety camera partnership is an example of that. People in my constituency have often asked for road safety implementation cameras, but, because we are part of London, the decision is always to focus resources on inner London and to ignore areas such as the London borough of Havering and my constituency of Romford.
I strongly endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire and my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for Spelthorne said about the two amendments. I believe that the camera partnerships are a complete and utter waste of money and totally bureaucratic. My greatest objection is to the lack of flexibility and local control. 
I used to be a local councillor in Romford, and represented a village on the edge of London called Havering-atte-Bower. It is a very hilly village with narrow lanes. Many accidents have occurred over the years, with several fatalities. Yet, despite everything that we have done locally to try and get a camera installed, the London camera partnership tell us that that is simply not acceptable and that it does not meet the criteria. So even if the police and the local council and residents want a camera, they cannot have one because funding is not directed to my area but to central London and other areas of London where this so-called partnership decides the cameras are going to be of greater use. 
The lack of local control, the lack of flexibility and the failure of these partnerships to recognise the needs of local communities—particularly those of villages, like the one I have mentioned—indicates to me that any money directed to these organisations is a waste. I therefore strongly endorse the amendments.

David Jamieson: This clause and these innocent little amendments have certainly lifted the lid on the clear differences between Conservative Members. We have four Conservative Members, who appear to have four different views on safety and cameras.

David Wilshire: Would the hon. Gentleman like to wait in expectation until all five of us are here?

David Jamieson: It would be instructive to get some further views; we may even have five Members competing with their difference views. If I can just throw in a fifth element—for the hon. Members for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) and for Spelthorne, perhaps—the safety camera partnerships have widespread support among their colleagues in local government. Most of the partnerships are supported by Conservatives in local government, who not only support them but actively pursue having cameras put in local communities. They are pursuing that because they are the people on the ground closest to the problems in their community. In many cases they are responding to the concerns of their constituents about speeding. They know that when the cameras are installed, there is a substantial reduction in the number of casualties on the stretches of road concerned.
In a way, I am sorry; I thought that I had been helpful last year when the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) took a polarised view of this issue. I provided information and an explanation and I thought that perhaps the Conservatives' view might change somewhat on this and that they might come to some sense. That is clearly not the case.

David Wilshire: I listened to the Minister's fiction with some amusement. His explanation as to why at least one Conservative-controlled county council is enthusiastic is totally wrong. Has he not heard about Surrey county council, which has decided to set one of these things up? They have made it quite clear that they have no intention of adding any more cameras and that the only reason they have done it is that they are so grossly underfunded by the Government's police grant that they have no alternative but to try to defray the cost of their cameras by fleecing the motorists.

David Jamieson: That is totally wrong. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to look at some of the other authorities; I have a list here of the partnerships. I know from personal contact and from the many letters that we have received from councillors and from some of the portfolio holders of the highways budgets how they have supported the cameras in their communities. The hon. Member for Spelthorne may want to connect with his colleagues in local government, because they have a different view from the one that he has expressed in the Committee.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would amend the clause so that a national transport authority—the Secretary of State for England or the National Assembly for Wales—could not provide payments to any organisation that formed part of a safety camera partnership. A partnership is a voluntary grouping that enables the police forces and highway authorities to operate cameras effectively. Virtually all highway authorities in England are now involved in the partnerships, regardless of the political party running the authority. 
Our main purpose in amending section 40 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is to clarify the scope for funding large-scale demonstration projects, to provide uncomplicated funding arrangements for local authorities that undertake such projects and to improve the administrative arrangements. Under the rules that we apply to the safety camera partnerships, money is available to them to fund the safety camera  operational expenditure through camera revenue netting-off arrangements. Under our strict guidelines, authorities can use the funds for that purpose only. 
I know that the hon. Member for Christchurch introduced safety cameras when was a Transport Minister. I think that he did a good job. I commend him, as I have on many other occasions, for having had the good sense to introduce them. We have taken the policy somewhat further. At the time, the hon. Gentleman predicted that 2 million tickets a year would be issued. It has taken 13 or 14 years to reach the number that he predicted in 1990; his predictions were right, but it took a little time. 
We have laid down a strict code of conduct for the partnerships, so that cameras cannot be placed anywhere simply to raise revenue. They must be placed on a stretch of road where, first, speeding takes place and, secondly, there is a record of death and injury. Over a period of about 13 months I have asked Opposition Members to let me know if they know of any cameras that do not meet those guidelines. There are about 5,000 cameras in the country. I constantly ask this question, but not a single camera has been brought to my attention during those 13 months. I assume from that that the partnerships are operating within the rules and that the authorities, many of them Conservative, are operating carefully within the rules and improving road safety in their area.

Greg Knight: Do those guidelines also apply to mobile camera sites? If not, what are the guidelines for siting mobile units?

David Jamieson: If it is helpful to the right hon. Gentleman, I can get him the full set of guidelines. Yes, they do apply to mobile sites. There is greater flexibility. The police have the ability to set up a mobile site outside the remit of the partnerships if they have concerns about a stretch of road: they would not receive the funding revenue from the fines. They can set them up at any time, at the chief constable's discretion, and usually in response to concerns about speeding. I think that about 10 per cent. of the sites in the partnership are mobile sites.
The hon. Member for Christchurch spoke as though a large amount of excess money was available from the partnership. In round figures, about £120 million was collected in fines last year and about £100 million returned to the partnerships. The partnerships include local authorities, the police, the judiciary and, in some cases, health authorities. The money is returned to them so that they can operate the cameras and—this is the important point—so that operation of the cameras is not a burden on the wider budget of the local authority or the police. The cameras do not take money away from fighting forms of crime other than speeding on the roads.

Mark Fisher: Is the hon. Member for Christchurch right in saying that such organisations cannot reinvest money in warning signs? If so, why is that the case? It seems eminently sensible to prevent rather than prosecute. If  there is a good reason why they should not invest in warning signs, could my hon. Friend the Minister explain it to the Committee?

David Jamieson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Part of the guidance for the siting of the cameras is that they must be conspicuous. They are painted yellow so that they are obvious. We do not want to catch people but to slow them down at sites where there have been the most casualties. The cameras must be clearly signed and advertised as well; that, too, is part of the guidance. Again, if my hon. Friend would like a copy of the guidance, I would be happy to provide one.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. A helpful offer has been made twice to provide documentation to colleagues. Perhaps it would be a good idea if the whole Committee were to get a copy.

Kevin Hughes: That is not a point of order, but I take on board the hon. Gentleman's request. I am sure that the Minister will do so as well.
Mr. Jamieson rose—

David Kidney: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Jamieson: I will in just a moment. There are so many things happening just now.
The rules are available in the Library, of course, and it is not necessary for me to provide them for Members. However, if that would be helpful, I am sure that we can pass a few copies around and provide some interesting bedside reading for Members. 
To complete the point that I was making to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), proper signing, warning and advertising are all part of the package that safety camera partnerships must accept.

Mark Fisher: On a point of clarification, the signs to which I referred are the infrequent but helpful signs that are just a warning. They alert people by flashing up that they are doing more than 37 mph. As a motorist, I find them salutary indeed. One immediately responds to them, and I would have thought that they would be more effective than the threat of a camera and likely prosecution.

David Jamieson: Yes, local authorities may place signs outside of the partnership arrangements at certain times. The Highways Agency sometimes puts them up on or near roadworks. A partnership can pay for vehicle-activated signs, but only at camera sites where there has been a certain level of speeding or death and injury. Such signs can be paid for out of partnership funds. Any highways authority or, I suppose, the police could pay for them outside of the partnership arrangement if they thought that that was appropriate.
Generally, I am very much of the mind that the signs are good. They should be used as a first resort, particularly if there is a problem for a certain period of time. They provide a useful adjunct to the rest of the partnership.

David Kidney: I wanted to help my hon. Friend by making it clear that the rules and guidance about where to site safety cameras are contained not in a secret document but in a handbook that is published every year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced on 4 November 2004 in a written statement at column 16WS in Hansard that this year's handbook had been produced and that copies were available in the Library.

David Jamieson: Yes, he did. I thank my hon. Friend for that. The document is freely available. The local authorities and the police have it and it is in the Library.

Richard Younger-Ross: The Minister referred to signage for speed cameras and said that the purpose of speed cameras was to reduce speed, not to catch motorists speeding. If that is the case, why can there not be signage before the speed camera to warn that it is 100 yd away? Instead of having generic signs which are spread all over the place and all down the side of the road, why can we not have a sign that says, ''100 yd'', with a picture of a speed camera? At least that would stop motorists looking for the yellow cameras and then slamming on their brakes at the last second. They would be given an opportunity to slow down in a reasonable manner.

David Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. At the vast majority of sites motorists are warned in advance. It staggers me that people get caught on the cameras because they are so well flagged up. There are websites and press releases; the vast majority of cameras have a sign beforehand saying that they are coming up; and they are painted yellow so that they can be seen, yet there are still people exceeding the speed limit.

Richard Younger-Ross: The Minister and I both travel to the same part of the country. I was surprised to hear his comments because I regularly drive on the A303 and no speed camera that I know of on that road has a pre-warning sign. There are generic signs that indicate that there are speed cameras on the road, but they do not warn that there is speed camera 100 yd away.

David Jamieson: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman wants a policeman to stand at the side of the road and tell people to slow down because there is a speed camera up ahead. The cameras are clearly painted and they are signed beforehand—although not at a specific distance. There are areas with mobile sites and there are often several signs along the road. To relate that to the area near his constituency, I can think of parts of the A38 that have mobile sites on the bridges, in places where there has been death and injury through excess speed. There are regular signs along that stretch of the road alerting motorists that a mobile site could be in operation.

Richard Younger-Ross: I am not arguing about mobile sites because that is a slightly different issue. However, where there is a fixed camera on a pole, and the purpose is to slow people down, as the Minister  said, we could stop them having to look for the yellow camera and then break when they come to that point by having a warning sign that says, ''100 yd''.

David Jamieson: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The document that we are going to be provided with shortly states:
 ''All safety camera sites within the Safety Camera Programme must be signed in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions. This ensures that all sites whether fixed, mobile or red light are clearly highlighted to motorists thus giving them every opportunity to moderate their speed to within the posted speed limit or to stop at a red light.'' 
If he knows of some sites that do not meet those criteria, he should bring it to the attention of Devon county council and the partnership. I am sure that they will take the appropriate action.

Greg Knight: The point that the Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) is making is that sites should be specifically signed and that there should not be generic permanent signs on a stretch of road when there is no camera in place. There should be a specific sign. If it is the Minister's policy that cameras should always be visible, why, on many occasions, do employees of the camera partnership hide in the back of an unmarked white van which has been specially converted so that the rear window drops down to enable them to film through it? Why are they not standing by the roadside in bright orange jackets, making themselves visible?

David Jamieson: The people that the right hon. Gentleman says are hiding in the van are the police, for whom we have high regard. They are catching people who are breaking the law and who are contributing to killing and injuring children and other people on our roads. Mobile sites are clearly signed. In some cases, the police or the partnership advertise when they are going to set up a site, with a view not to catching people, but to getting them to slow down.

David Wilshire: The Minister is being contradictory. I accept what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire says. If the police hide in the back of vans, so that one does not know they are there, it is an argument for hiding fixed cameras in hedges. The Government have accepted that we should not do that, and that fixed cameras should be made visible. Surely to goodness, consistency means that police should not hide in the back of unmarked vans.

David Jamieson: The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said that the police were hiding in the back of the van. The vans are usually police vans and they are very conspicuous, but if he has a complaint about that in his constituency, he should raise it with the partnership. However we pick over this point, the sites are signed and the police catch only people who are exceeding the speed limit and breaking the law in areas where there has been death and injury due to people speeding.

Richard Younger-Ross: On the distinction between the vans with mobile speed cameras, the officer in the van has discretion over whether to photograph and do someone for speeding. They will make a judgment within bounds and by what is on the road. A fixed camera takes a photograph when a pre-determined speed has been reached. The Minister keeps saying that those cameras are signed, but let us make it clear: fixed speed cameras are not signed to say that there is a speed camera within a certain distance.

David Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. With cameras operated from the back of a van, a degree of judgment is left to the police officer in the back of a van about a particular motorist and the danger that they might cause at a particular site. He is right to say that there is no specific sign standing at a certain distance from a speed camera; nevertheless, they are signed in the area in which they are placed. If he wants to present an argument that they should be signed differently, he may want to see if he can get some interest locally. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) said, we annually review the guidance on this matter, and if the hon. Gentleman thinks that we can improve it, I would be happy to consider what he has to say. We considered a large number of representations last time and we made several helpful changes, so if he wants to contribute to that, it will be his major contribution to the Committee and road safety.
The hon. Member for Christchurch raised a point about clause 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. It is not for me to speak to that Bill in this Committee, but I can say that it legislates for the fines that have been generated by the automatic number plate recognition cameras. Some of that money will be hypothecated to the police. Again, as we are putting so much extra money into the police, it represents more money that is not being diverted from the tackling of other crime. It is money from those detection cameras that can be used. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's point relates to any of our discussions. 
This has been an illuminating debate. We have spent a long time discussing speed safety cameras, which was, I suppose, almost inevitable. Some of the grants that we have given to local authorities, which this clause will make much easier to provide in the future, have been used to great effect. I say to the hon. Gentleman that they are far in excess of the revenue from fines that the Exchequer currently holds on to. It retains about £20 million, which goes into the Consolidated Fund. 
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central will know that his constituency has benefited from a grant given to his local authority. I wrote to him earlier in the year. The local authority has been providing extra facilities in Stoke-on-Trent. They may not be specifically in his constituency, but they are certainly in Stoke-on-Trent. Moneys were focused specifically on authorities, such as Manchester and Blackpool, which had a high rate of child deaths on their roads. Many of those authorities are introducing innovative schemes to improve road safety for children. The clause enables us to provide funding for  those schemes freely, without requiring the bureaucracy of going through the House with a special order each time we want to fund a scheme. 
The amendments would prevent any authority that was in a camera partnership—in other words, virtually every authority in the country, whether controlled by the Tories, by Labour or by the Liberal Democrats—from receiving one of those grants. That totally contradicts what the hon. Member for Christchurch said he wanted. On the one hand, he said that we should take more money from the cameras. Should we put it into road safety? The hon. Member for Spelthorne said, ''Let's get rid of those wretched things'', which would mean less money going to the authorities. On the other hand, he opened his speech by saying that we should spend more money on road safety. Perhaps, as the Committee proceeds, the Opposition will provide more clarity on those matters. They have certainly not provided any yet.

David Kidney: The Minister says that there is bureaucracy—special orders are needed for each grant—and that we will sweep that bureaucracy away. My concern is about scrutiny and accountability. Is it intended that the Department will make an annual report to Parliament of the grants that it has given?

David Jamieson: All the Department's expenditure is open to scrutiny by the House, as is that of every other Department. The grants are generally not given out in advance, but are provided as recompense for a scheme that has been carried out. So, if the authority does not carry out the scheme according to the specific guidelines that we set out and the specific case that it made for the funding, it will not be given the money. There is that safeguard. We check carefully to make sure that the money will be used for the purpose that we intended and that it does not drift off to be used for a purpose not related to road safety.
This has been an illuminating debate. I hope that the power and strength of the arguments that I have put forward against the amendments mean that the Committee will resist them.

David Wilshire: I want to add a couple of points to what the Minister said. They would, I am sure, have been too long for an intervention.
At the risk of being accused by the Minister of being inconsistent, I say that I subscribe to the view that politicians need to be pragmatists. Therefore, although I object to speed cameras, which the debate is partly about, I am prepared to address the issue on the basis that they may continue. In that context, the Minister might like to reflect on a couple of things. 
The first is the point that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central made well. I want to reinforce that point. Making it possible to spend the money made by safety camera partnerships should be high on the list of priorities. I vouch for the fact that those flashing lights have a salutary effect. There are a number of them in my constituency. My constituents say that they find them useful and that they slow people down. So, if spending the money that  partnerships make is not possible and if the Bill as phrased does not make it possible, I join the hon. Gentleman in trying to persuade the Minister to make a practical change so that it becomes possible. 
My other point arises from what the hon. Member for Teignbridge said. I do not come from his part of the world, but from God's own county, Somerset, so I know the A303 well. When I go down that road, a couple of cameras concern me. They are not in built-up areas. One generally knows if one is in an area with a speed limit of 30 mph, so, if one sees a camera, one knows that it is checking that one is doing 30 mph. On the open road, of which the A303 is an example, there are bits that have 50 mph limits, because they are dangerous. Other parts have no speed limit, which means that the limit is 60 mph if the road is a single carriageway. One of the cameras that I have in mind is in a 50 mph area, and a couple of others cover the 60 mph bit. There can be signs that say what the limit is, but one is never quite sure. 
One can drive along a bit of road where it is permissible to go at 60 mph and see a camera looming. There is a sign showing that it is there, and at the last minute one thinks, ''Is the limit 60, 50, or 40?'' One often finds oneself behind someone who jams on their brakes thinking that the limit might be 30, even though traffic behind is legally doing 55 or 60 mph. I suggest to the Minister that if he intends to stick with that, the speed limit should be placed on the camera. I accept the argument that the hon. Member for Teignbridge uses about more specific signs, which I will not go into further because he has made the point. I would like to make a plea for putting the speed limit on each camera so that someone does not whack on their brakes at the last minute and cause an accident where people go into the back of them.

Christopher Chope: I said at the outset that this was a probing amendment, and it has been very useful to that end. Far from disclosing disagreements on my side, it has pointed out some of the inconsistencies in the Government's approach which we shall return to when we discuss clause 17, which relates to the question whether the Government really want motorists to know in advance that a speed camera is in position, or whether they want to take motorists by surprise and obtain a fine from them.
I am grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends for their contributions to the debate, and I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central for highlighting one of the points from my opening remarks. I would like to return to that point. The Minister has told us that £120 million in fines is collected, of which £100 million is being recycled to help to run the cameras, meaning that there is a surplus of £20 million. Why is that £20 million not available for reinvestment in speed indicator warning signs, in positions where there are no speed cameras? I do not think that the Minister has answered that question, and I will happily give way to him if he wishes to address that point. 
From discussions with a county councillor in Dorset, Councillor Ann Warman, I know that she has been trying to have such signs installed on the B3081 between Ringwood and Verwood, a road that is largely within the boundary of Hampshire country council. There have been six fatalities on that road in as many years. The council says that it cannot afford to put up a speed indicator warning sign because it has only one mobile sign and cannot afford to put up fixed signs. 
Dorset county council has invested in six mobile signs using its own resources, but it would be much better, and we would have many more of those speed indicator warning signs, if we were able to reinvest the money from the penalties imposed at speed camera sites. The Minister has said that £20 million goes straight into the Treasury coffers; if that money were invested in speed indicator warning signs, I venture to suggest that there would be a manifest improvement in road safety.

David Jamieson: I do not know the record of the road that the hon. Gentleman just described, but I point out for clarification that if Hampshire, Dorset or any of the other authorities to which he refers wanted to place a vehicle-activated sign, and the road met the criteria for having a camera, the partnership could provide vehicle-activated signs. Judging from the death and injury that he describes on that road, he should pursue the matter with the local authority.
There is no security to the excess money, the money that goes to the Consolidated Fund. We hope that the figure will fall, because we want fewer people to be fined, not more, so trying to fund projects with that money would not give local authorities any security. It is better to fund them through my Department, which can securely attach certain funds to certain projects.

Christopher Chope: The Minister's last point is rather weak. When there is a surplus, the money could surely be reinvested in road safety measures. I am not suggesting that extra money should be spent when there is not a surplus.
As to the issue about fixed cameras as against speed indicator warning signs, a fixed camera is of limited use on local roads where accidents take place along a whole stretch of road. Local people get to know where a speed camera is; they slow down, then they can accelerate away. However, a speed indicator warning sign warns motorists, whether they know the road well or not, that it is, in a sense, an accident blackspot and that their speed is exceeding the limit. 
Another point that has emerged is that the cost of administering the safety camera partnerships has now risen to as much as £100 million. One is bound to ask whether, if one had £100 million to invest in improving road safety, one would put it into safety camera partnerships and speed cameras, as we do, or into another mix of investment. As I have said before, I think that the Government are spending too little money on engineering and education and putting too much effort and expenditure into cameras.

Louise Ellman: Does not the hon. Gentleman find it difficult to argue consistently against speed cameras when independent research has verified that accidents in the vicinity of speed cameras can be reduced by up to 40 per cent.?

Christopher Chope: No, I do not find that difficult to argue, because a much better return can be obtained from safety improvements, such as putting up a safety barrier or building a dual carriageway where there is a single carriageway. One can get a return like that from all sorts of measures. The idea that only by installing a safety camera can one get any return on investment and a reduction in serious and fatal accidents is mistaken. One of the troubles with speed cameras is that they are sometimes used as a substitute for road engineering measures.
Some members of the Committee will be familiar, for example, with the A30 between Exeter and Cornwall. Along that road there is a speed camera for eastbound traffic which is close to a dangerous junction. The camera causes people on that carriageway—most of whom are doing in excess of 70 mph—to reduce their speed, but it has not done anything to improve the overall safety of the junction. The best way of improving its overall safety in the long term would be to have a grade separated junction as there is on another part of that road; the Minister knows that part of the world. If all those junctions on the A30 between Exeter and Truro were grade separated road safety would be much enhanced and there would not be a need for the speed camera. 
I do not buy into the argument that the only way of achieving improved road safety is by sticking up a speed camera. Indeed, often the impact of these cameras is that they just encourage people to think that the only place where they have to comply with the limit is where there is a speed camera in position.

David Jamieson: I am listening very carefully to what the hon. Member has said. Could he just help the Committee? He has largely argued against speed cameras. Could he now tell us what was the thinking back in the late '80s and in the early '90s when he introduced the cameras?

Kevin Hughes: Order. I have allowed a fairly wide-ranging debate on the amendments but I will not be taken advantage of. We are not, in this clause, debating the merits of the cameras.

Christopher Chope: I have no regrets whatsoever about introducing the power to have camera enforcement in the Road Traffic Act 1991. It has been at its best at traffic lights.

David Jamieson: Yes.

Christopher Chope: I am glad that the Minister agrees, because there can be no excuse whatsoever for going through a red traffic light. The more motorists who are caught and banged to rights for breaking traffic light rules the better. I am concerned, however, that they are now being used in such large numbers as a substitute for engineering and education improvements rather than as an end in themselves of helping enforcement. I will not go on with this any longer as we will have a chance to come back to this on clause 17.
In answering my question about the contents of clause 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill the Minister made another interesting point. He has drawn attention to the hypothecation in that clause, with resources going back directly to the police, rather than to so-called safety camera partnerships. The point that we are making on our side is that the hypothecation in relation to the fines from safety cameras could be to police authorities or to highway authorities for reinvestment. It is not necessary for there to be a safety camera partnership in order for hypothecation to be secured. That the Government accept that is apparent from the fact that they introduced clause 132 without having to set up a new body to accommodate the receipts from the fine hypothecation process. 
We discussed the contents of the handbook and so on. I do not disagree with the idea of giving road safety grants, and I am grateful to the Minister for giving us some of the information about the money coming from the cameras. Are those figures for the last financial year, ending last April? If not, what period is covered? Does the £120 million of fines reflects those actually paid or just those imposed? We know that many fines are imposed but never paid, so perhaps the Minister could clarify that. We are grateful for the indication that there is a surplus of £20 million. It could be better spent if it were invested in road safety measures. 
Having identified the amendment as a probing one, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Greg Knight: This clause is widely drawn, and gives the Secretary of State massive unfettered powers. I am uneasy about its wording and seek reassurance from the Minister. The clause gives a national transport authority, which is
''the Secretary of State acting with the approval of the Treasury'', 
which I presume he always does, the power to 
''make payments to any local authority''— 
I have no qualms about that— 
''or any other authority or body for meeting the whole or part of the capital or running costs of any measures for promoting road safety.'' 
The Minister should explain what he has in mind, apart from the expected giving of grants to local authorities or perhaps safety camera partnerships. 
I shall give an extreme example that would be allowed under the provision. The Wellingborough Labour party, perhaps despairing of the future, might decide in March, two months ahead of a general election, to launch a campaign, ''Be safe in Higham Ferrers.'' It might want every cyclist going through the constitutency to wear a bright, fluorescent jacket that states on the back, ''Paul Stinchcombe says, 'Be safe.''' Wellingborough Labour party is a body and it could say that its campaign was for road safety, so it seems that that would be allowed under the Bill. 
Such an extreme example would not be acceptable to public opinion and the Minister would not venture that far. But there may be other marginal cases that might not upset public opinion but which most of here would consider unacceptable that the Minister could fund under the provision. Will he tell us what he has in mind and why he feels that it is in order for the Secretary of State to have that power to make such grants to any body or organisation for any measures so long as they relate to road safety?

John Thurso: This important clause gives important powers and we support it. However, I have two questions for the Minister.
First, I understand that the powers are already available in Scotland. Will the Minister confirm that the clause broadly mirrors the provision in Scotland, where it has worked well? Secondly, can he clarify why ''national transport authority'' means the 
''Secretary of State acting with the approval of the Treasury''? 
I understand from the helpful Library notes that no new money is attached to the proposal and that it is simply a more efficient and effective way of using existing resources. Is it normal to require the approval of the Treasury in each instance?

David Jamieson: If I may, I shall say just a few generic words about the clause and then deal with the points that have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
As I said earlier, clause 1 extends the scope of section 40 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for England and Wales. New section 40 makes it clear that the National Assembly for Wales or, for England, the Secretary of State may make payments to local authorities and  other authorities and bodies to meet the whole or part of the capital or running costs of any measure for promoting road safety. 
I assure the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross that the grants are available in Scotland. The 1988 Act has already been amended for Scotland by section 76 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, which enables Scottish Ministers to make contributions towards the cost of measures undertaken by local authorities and other authorities to promote road safety. I am glad to hear his news from the north that that is working well in Scotland. 
The power to provide funding will support innovation in road safety. The development of road safety policy is often best achieved by piloting at a local level, which allows specific complex problems to be addressed by local authorities through the development of bespoke packages of road safety measures on the ground. There is accelerated learning for authorities that take part, and others with similar problems can select measures that have been effective for use in their area. It is an efficient use of public resources. 
Although we have been able to fund local authority schemes in the past, the available funding methods have not been ideal. The special grant procedure has proved cumbersome and is better suited to unusual, one-off expenditures. Local government powers are broad and may have limitations compared with a specific road safety grant power. For example, the Gloucester safer city project relied on the predecessor to the local transport plan funding arrangements for capital, and rate support grant for revenue, so finance was not directly related to the project. 
The project was extremely successful as a pilot, and many of the other authorities in this country—and, in fact, from around the world—are looking at the work to provide safer measures that Gloucester did to find improvements that they can replicate in their area. Probably 80 or 90 per cent. of the measures taken in Gloucester were very successful, but some were not. We learn from doing innovative things, and sometimes something that is not successful is also helpful, as other authorities will not want to replicate something that does not work. 
Another example is the Kerbcraft project, which teaches young children practical roadside skills. I have been able to observe some of the work that is done in schools, and it is excellent. The schools co-operate with the local authority in providing people to assist children to cross the road safely. 
The neighbourhood road safety initiative, which I spoke about briefly in relation to Stoke-on-Trent, focuses specifically on the disadvantaged. We know that children who live in tight, urban areas, often in poorer communities, are about five times more likely to be injured or killed on the roads than those who live in the leafier suburbs. That is why we focused our funding on areas that had a high death rate for children on the roads. I gave some illustrations earlier of how the grant money had been used.The new power in clause 1 has the benefits of clarifying the scope for  road safety projects, providing uncomplicated funding arrangements for local authorities and improving administrative arrangements. 
A frisson ran through me when the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire spoke about diverting money from my Department to local Labour parties, specifically to the local party of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe). Attractive though that may seem to a Government, we come to the point made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. I do not think that it would meet Treasury rules. That is why the provision is in the clause, so that we, or a successor Government of another party, which the hon. Member for Spelthorne, who has come back to join us, has predicted will happen in 180 days' time—

David Wilshire: Eighty.

David Jamieson: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I thought he said 180. His powers of prediction are obviously better than mine. I do not know what will happen on 6 May. I am not privy to the inner workings of others.

David Wilshire: The Minister will probably be down at the jobcentre with us.

David Jamieson: I was asked, quite properly, which other bodies could be funded. Often a number of other bodies co-operate with local authorities in providing road safety measures. A good example is that we, and successive Governments over the years, have provided money to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. That organisation has helped to pilot many projects and has given its hugely valuable expertise over a long time. I think that the Treasury is content that we should provide money to ROSPA, which is a structured organisation with a line of command; we know how the money will be spent and we know that the funds that it has received in the past have been spent to good effect.

Greg Knight: The Minister's words reassure me somewhat. Will he give an undertaking that, when the Bill becomes law, he will make a written statement to Parliament listing the other bodies or authorities that have received a grant under the clause?

David Jamieson: We do not want to restrict bodies in future that may be as good as ROSPA, but we could give more examples of where funding is being provided. In relation to the funding that my Department hands out, which mostly goes to local authorities, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we take great care about where those valuable resources go. We have a limited amount of money. That is why we are extremely careful about to whom we give it and where it goes. As I said to one of my hon. Friends earlier, we also make sure that it is spent on the things that we want it spent on and not, attractive as it may sound, for some party-political end. That would not be in order.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Graduated fixed penalties

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in clause 2, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
'(bb) the time of day it was committed.'.

Kevin Hughes: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in clause 2, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
'(bb) the number of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users in the vicinity at the time,'. 
No. 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 3, at end insert— 
'(bb) the prevailing weather conditions,'. 
No. 9, in clause 2, page 2, line 3, at end insert— 
'(bb) the conditions of visibility,'. 
No. 10, in clause 2, page 2, line 4, at end insert— 
'(cc) whether the contravention resulted in a collision,'. 
No. 11, in clause 2, page 2, line 7, at end insert— 
'(dd) any mitigating circumstances put forward by the offender,'. 
No. 16, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert— 
'(bb) the time of day it was committed,'. 
No. 17, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert— 
'(bb) the number of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users in the vicinity at the time,'. 
No. 18, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert— 
'(bb) the prevailing weather conditions,'. 
No. 19, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert— 
'(bb) the conditions of visibility,'. 
No. 20, in clause 3, page 2, line 38, at end insert— 
'(cc) whether the contravention resulted in a collision,'. 
No. 21, in clause 3, page 2, line 41, at end insert— 
'(dd) any mitigating circumstances put forward by the offender.'.

Christopher Chope: The helpful briefing that the Minister and his officials provided to some of us yesterday explains that the clause relates particularly to the new power in clause 4 that enables vehicle examiners to give fixed penalty notices. However, the wording of the clause is not restricted, which gives us the chance to question the Government on their thinking behind the choice of criteria in paragraphs (a) to (d).
The amendments that I have tabled give some alternative and additional criteria. Amendment No. 6 would add the time of day when an offence is committed, which can often be a highly relevant factor. Amendment No. 7 would add 
''the number of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users in the vicinity at the time'', 
which again is a highly relevant factor. Much of the correspondence that we have received from road safety campaigners in the run-up to the debate on the Bill in Committee has emphasised their concern about  vulnerable road users, and pedestrians and speeding vehicles. If we accept that concern, which I share, and that priority, the other side of the coin is that when no pedestrians or other vulnerable road users are in the vicinity at the time, the offence might be regarded as less serious.

Paul Stinchcombe: I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman. He makes some interesting and valid points and has just mentioned the factors that might make an offence more or less serious. He will see from subsection (2)(b) that one factor of which account must be taken is how serious the offence is. Are the issues raised by his amendment not already in the clause?

Christopher Chope: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not believe that the words ''how serious it is'' in paragraph (b) are sufficiently precise. Who will judge that? How will the judgment be made? What criteria will apply? I believe that something specific about, say, the number of vulnerable road users and pedestrians in the vicinity at the time would be relevant to assessing the gravity of the offence, but that is not spelt out in the clause. Why should we as Parliament not take this opportunity to spell it out?

Paul Stinchcombe: The difficulty about spelling things out is that what is not spelt out is then necessarily excluded, whereas putting a word such as ''serious'' into the Bill gives the decision-maker discretion to consider all the facts and any given circumstance and come to his own judgment.

Christopher Chope: I do not ask that my amendments should be at the expense of leaving ''how serious it is'' out of paragraph (b). I ask that additional factors should be taken into account. It is the essence of a mature democracy that discretion should be exercised, instead of there being absolutism. The fixed penalty regime has proved convenient for administrators and enforcers and, on occasion, for the perpetrators of offences; not least, as the Minister will know, because it normally means that they can perpetrate the offence without any risk of publicity. Before such offences were dealt with under the fixed penalty system, a Member of Parliament—dare one think of such a possibility?—who offended against a speed limit in his constituency shortly after having campaigned on road safety issues would risk publicity. If he or she were to offend against a speed limit now, there is a chance that they might be able to avoid publicity. It is rather like ticking the box on the old pools coupon; people can avoid publicity by going for a fixed penalty. I am not suggesting that a fixed penalty scheme is wholly one-sided, but it has resulted in hard cases. I would welcome more flexibility.
To take a hypothetical example, if a person taking a sick child in their car to hospital in an emergency goes too fast past a speed camera and is detected, at present there is no scope for being able to reduce the fixed penalty notice imposed. That is not something that we should tolerate in a mature democracy, where we have the ability to exercise our discretion. I give that as an  example of the sort of circumstance that might occur. The other relevant criteria are the conditions of visibility and whether the contravention resulted in a collision. It is difficult to legislate for a penalty system based on the outcome of behaviour, but there is increasing demand among the public to link penalties to the consequences of people's actions. 
Mr. Stinchcombe indicated assent.

Christopher Chope: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees.
Amendment No. 11 refers to 
''any mitigating circumstances put forward by the offender''. 
That is not in the existing criteria in the Bill. 
Intriguingly, paragraph (d) refers to whether 
''the offender appears to have committed any offence or offences of a description specified in the order during a period so specified.'' 
I am not sure how that will be ascertained when the offence is committed. I would have thought that a defence of mitigating circumstances should be available. 
I had some constituency correspondence recently about a gentleman who went past a speed camera in Bournemouth three or four times in an area where the speed limit had recently changed. He was caught by surprise and only on the third occasion did he realise that he had been caught on camera because the offences took place within 24 or 36 hours. The form that was sent to him stated that if he had mitigating circumstances, he could have a hearing in court. He thought that he had mitigating circumstances and went to court, but was told that it was a complete waste of time because the court had no discretion and had to impose the three points on his licence. 
I then wrote to the Court Service saying that there must be something wrong with the standard form because it specifically invites offenders to go to court if they have mitigating circumstances. When they get there, they find that it meant that they could go to court if there were exacerbating circumstances for a penalty higher than the minimum, but that the court has no discretion to award a penalty lower than the minimum. He was fortunate that the court was understanding and did not penalise him further with an order for costs. 
I hope that the Minister will consider that issue because, at the moment, the standard form refers to mitigating circumstances. But if someone takes that at face value and goes to court, they find that the court has no scope to exercise the discretion that it should have in a civilised society. 
It will not have escaped the notice of the Committee that amendments Nos. 16 to 21 refer to the equivalent provisions in clause 3. It is obviously convenient to deal with that in one debate because, essentially, the same issues arise. As with so many amendments, they provide an opportunity for the Minister to explain exactly what he has in mind; whether the criteria in clause 2 were designed to deal with the sort of offences referred to in clauses 4 and 5, or whether they were intended to be more wide ranging, and why those examples of mitigating circumstances were chosen rather than the ones I set out in the amendments.

Greg Knight: My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate, but on this occasion he has not entirely convinced me of the necessity of the amendments, although it seemed to me when we discussed tabling them that the Committee should debate the issue. I think that the Committee is led back to the intervention of the hon. Member for Wellingborough. If one goes through the amendments—it is fair that we ask the Minister to respond to them on the record—and considers the case of someone falling foul of the law at 6 am on a sunny morning with no vehicle, pedestrian or possible collision in sight, one could conclude that the offence was not a serious one. That is contained in the Bill.
So I am with my hon. Friend as far as saying that we want the Minister to confirm that all the circumstances in the amendments are covered by his wording. Does he agree that that is the position?

Paul Stinchcombe: How could the idea of mitigating circumstances possibly be subsumed in the existing clause? The clause is concerned with fixed penalties.

Greg Knight: I am confining my remarks to amendments Nos. 6 to 10. I have not come on to amendment No. 11. My points are correct for amendments Nos. 6 to 10.
The danger in seeking to include a list in a Bill is that it may not be comprehensive. Someone may find an example that is not included in the list and say that it should not be taken into account. That was another point that the hon. Member for Wellingborough made. For example, what is the status of the road? Is it a motorway, which is clearly built to cater for vehicles travelling at about 70 mph, or is it a country B road with twists and turns, for which a much lower speed would be safe? There is a problem in trying to tag a list on to the Bill, but I would be reassured if the Minister confirmed that he envisaged that all of the circumstances contained in the amendments will be covered by the Bill.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend said that one could conclude that the offence was not serious. It is certainly true that someone might conclude that it was not serious, but someone else might conclude that the circumstances that he described were serious. Many absolutists believe that any infringement of a speed limit is serious and should not be the subject of mitigation.

Greg Knight: Based on what I have heard the hon. Member for Stafford say on previous occasions, he would take such a position. I think that anyone viewing an offence would take such matters into account, but I want the Minister to confirm that that is also his understanding.
On amendment No. 11, it is important that there is some recognition that there may be mitigating circumstances of which the police officer was not aware that should be taken into account when he is appraised of the circumstances. It is right and proper to put that in the Bill.

David Wilshire: I apologise for missing the beginning of the debate and hope that I do not cover ground that was covered in my absence. There is a prison in my constituency that regularly causes me immediate grief, which is what happened a moment ago.
I received a phone call from the local accident and emergency department 23 years ago, telling me that my 12-year-old daughter had been admitted and was seriously ill. I did what any parent would do; leapt into my car and drove the 14 miles from home to Bath as fast as I could. Sadly, I got there too late, but that is a separate issue. Reflecting on the incident, I have little doubt that I did not drive well. Although I cannot remember, I am fairly certain that I broke assorted speed limits. In the circumstances, I could have broken the law, done something very stupid and killed somebody. I would not consider that I had any justification for behaving like that, despite the fact that I was distressed. 
On the other hand, had I just happened to be doing 40 mph in a 30 mph area, with nobody about, when the visibility was good, I could reasonably have argued that perhaps in the circumstances most people would have behaved like that and I did no harm to anybody. 
As I understand the law—listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch—I would have had no justification for saying, ''Look, hang on a minute. For other reasons, I have got x penalty points on my licence and this one will do for me. It will get me disqualified.'' There are individual cases where mitigating circumstances ought to be considered and will do no harm to the public, and where that will not set a precedent. God forbid that anyone has to use what I could have used as a mitigating circumstance on that occasion. 
Even if the Minister says that there is no need for that or that it would be better done some other way, perhaps the Hansard report of this Committee would be a sufficient indication to magistrates, the police or whoever else has to deal with this matter. Progress could be made in that direction. I would be grateful to hear what the Minister has to say. I am not saying that amendment No. 11 will automatically do the trick, but I support its spirit for the reasons that I have given. I look forward to the Minister's comments. 
 On the other issues, I am not a lawyer and I often puzzle over the way lawyers talk about these things. I heard the hon. Member for Wellingborough say that because the provision mentions ''how serious it is'' there is no need for the list that we want to include. I can follow that argument until I look at paragraph (c), which states: 
''the area, or sort of place''. 
If the lawyer's argument is that ''how serious'' covers everything, why is there then a list? If the Government feel it necessary to specify in paragraph (c), which begins the list, where an offence takes place, what is wrong with saying when it takes place?

Paul Stinchcombe: The hon. Gentleman is making a good point. However, there is some structure to the clause. It mentions the nature of the offence, its gravity, its location and the form of the offender.

David Wilshire: Yes, but the time of day is one of the most relevant things. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. The location and type of offence are included. However, at the risk of opening myself to prosecution, I will admit that on motorways very late at night, in good weather, I have driven slightly in excess of 70 mph. I would argue that when the motorway is empty at 2 o'clock in the morning and I am minding my own business and breaking the speed limit, that is an entirely different offence from going down the fast lane—I appreciate that we are not supposed to call it that—in the rush hour at 85 or 90 mph. Doing 85 or 90 mph on a motorway can be more serious than doing 110 mph; I hasten to add that my car will not do 110.

Greg Knight: How do you know?

David Wilshire: It might just; going downhill, with the wind behind it. We will not go into that. I shall dig an even bigger trench for myself before I know where I am. I assume that previous endorsements are not relevant declarable interests as far as the Committee is concerned. Or perhaps we all ought to queue up and confess to you, Mr. Hughes.
I will not speak about the other things on the list. I understand the points that have been made. However, if we are going to list where an offence takes place, perhaps we ought also to say when it takes place.

David Jamieson: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Christchurch, who tabled amendments Nos. 6 to 11. I shall ask the Committee to resist them because the conditions that they deal with are adequately covered in the clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough kindly did part of my job for me by pointing out that specifying factors in the Bill could exclude other factors unless the list was totally exhaustive. The danger in being too specific is that we may appear to rule out other circumstances, rather than having some clearly ruled in by those set out in paragraphs (a) to (d). Paragraph (b) deals with most of the issues that the hon. Member for Christchurch was talking about; the question of the seriousness of the offence. That covers a wide range of different activities that a person may have undertaken.

Greg Knight: I am pretty much with the Minister when he says that it is better to have broad headings that narrow definitions, but will he explain why he suggests that the Committee should reject amendments Nos. 11 and 21?

David Jamieson: I shall come to that. The right hon. Gentleman has helped me with a little bit of a mystery that I was considering in the past couple of days; the reason why some of the amendments had attached the names of three Opposition Members, while some had only one. It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman disagrees with the hon. Member for Christchurch on some of the amendments, which is why he spoke  against them. I thought that he was doing my job for me at one stage as well; I am looking for aid and assistance from all quarters during the proceedings.

David Wilshire: I was interested in what the Minister said. He might like to reflect that, unless I am a bit slow on the uptake, on the only occasions when there are two signatories to our amendments, it is my name that is left out and not that of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire.

David Jamieson: I thought, Mr. Hughes, that I heard you mutter under your breath, ''Put the spade down'' at one stage, and the hon. Gentleman seems to be digging himself a little further into the various trenches he described during his previous contribution.

Mark Fisher: I accept the Minister's general point that to prescribe closely creates more problems than it solves, but does he accept the general thrust of what the hon. Member for Spelthorne said about timing? For instance, an offence committed outside a school at two o'clock in the morning is very different from one committed during school hours, particularly as schoolchildren are coming out. Is he confident that that will be accepted and understood when the Bill becomes law?

David Jamieson: I totally accept what my hon. Friend says, and the general thrust of what the hon. Member for Christchurch said. That is why I pointed out paragraphs (b) and (c), which deal with the seriousness of the offence, and the area or sort of place where it occurs. That would clearly suggest to me that a school at times when children are coming out or going in was more risky a place than it would at three in the morning. The generic specification in those paragraphs more than adequately covers the issues raised.

Christopher Chope: The Minister talks about how the seriousness of the offence is covered by all amendments. Does he believe that the question of seriousness includes the consequences of what happens? Those consequences may be a collision or injuries resulting from that.

David Jamieson: Yes, that is covered because the seriousness of the event would also include any injuries, whether it was a minor scrape or whether it inflicted a number of deaths. That is what the term ''serious incident'' suggests to me.
The clause amends section 53 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, which will enable the Secretary of State to prescribe by order— 
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock. The Committee consisted of the following Members: